Probably pedantic point but I see a difference between money lending and receiving interest in return for the risk of not getting the money back. And private central banks convincing governments that the money they create is worth paying interest for.
There is a difference for sure, though I would point out the obvious slippery slope, and I would point out that slope is coated in the grease of unmitigated greed, and I would point to our ancestors TOTAL BANS on interest bearing loans (aka usury).
With further reading you can see that these bankers were not funding their side of a war, but were infact funding both sides of many wars, some entirely disconnected from the lands they lived in, others closer to home. The Rothschild dynasty especially was horrible for this, making money hand over fist while European kingdoms (ostensibly the “nations” of these bankers) fell.
So it’s not like, e.g., King Louis was instituting a 1% war tax on French printed money and funding his war with that, FRANCE HERSELF was being taxed by the bankers, this largess was being passed off to enemies of France to fund invasions and war campaigns against her! While also funding France’s response (ensuring that whoever wins will be indebted to the banks until the bank-parasites excrete themselves, enter the water supply and change hosts
I get where you’re coming from with the idea that this was just an innovation in warfunding, but I just don’t think that was the case (that this was a scheme the nations of the world wanted, to fund their wars of aggression - I see it more as an “arms race”, where the bankers were the ones fueling the race on all sides, because no matter which side lost, the lenders won).
Regardless, more bankers should die in wars, you can't partake in a war via funding without sharing some of the risk. It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that this is why they fund both sides. Can't take out the source of the enemy funding if it's your funding too.
I try to avoid hyperbolic conclusions from things like this but I just don't see a solution to this.
Yeah, to your specific point about the people making the decisions having to know the pain inflicted by their choices, I think of Heinlein and service-based citizenship.
However, regarding the overall broken and diseased system, yeah, I don’t really see a way out but through... it probably involves a lot of people de-banking and forming parallel systems that operate in an autonomous, self-contained and self-sustaining manner and just naturally growing those out - just my gut feeling
I think of Heinlein and service-based citizenship.
A man of culture.
it probably involves a lot of people de-banking and forming parallel systems that operate in an autonomous, self-contained and self-sustaining manner and just naturally growing those out - just my gut feeling
I am glad to see the discourse start to reach towards feeling for plans and/or ideologies to see us through.
There is a difference for sure, though I would point out the obvious slippery slope, and I would point out that slope is coated in the grease of unmitigated greed, and I would point to our ancestors TOTAL BANS on interest bearing loans (aka usury).
With further reading you can see that these bankers were not funding their side of a war, but were infact funding both sides of many wars, some entirely disconnected from the lands they lived in, others closer to home. The Rothschild dynasty especially was horrible for this, making money hand over fist while European kingdoms (ostensibly the “nations” of these bankers) fell.
So it’s not like, e.g., King Louis was instituting a 1% war tax on French printed money and funding his war with that, FRANCE HERSELF was being taxed by the bankers, this largess was being passed off to enemies of France to fund invasions and war campaigns against her! While also funding France’s response (ensuring that whoever wins will be indebted to the banks until the bank-parasites excrete themselves, enter the water supply and change hosts
I get where you’re coming from with the idea that this was just an innovation in warfunding, but I just don’t think that was the case (that this was a scheme the nations of the world wanted, to fund their wars of aggression - I see it more as an “arms race”, where the bankers were the ones fueling the race on all sides, because no matter which side lost, the lenders won).
Regardless, more bankers should die in wars, you can't partake in a war via funding without sharing some of the risk. It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that this is why they fund both sides. Can't take out the source of the enemy funding if it's your funding too.
I try to avoid hyperbolic conclusions from things like this but I just don't see a solution to this.
Yeah, to your specific point about the people making the decisions having to know the pain inflicted by their choices, I think of Heinlein and service-based citizenship.
However, regarding the overall broken and diseased system, yeah, I don’t really see a way out but through... it probably involves a lot of people de-banking and forming parallel systems that operate in an autonomous, self-contained and self-sustaining manner and just naturally growing those out - just my gut feeling
A man of culture.
I am glad to see the discourse start to reach towards feeling for plans and/or ideologies to see us through.